The Libertarian As Conservative

Punk punks at
Thu Mar 28 17:03:23 PDT 2019

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:24:48 -0400
Steve Kinney <admin at> wrote:

> > 	Not sure what you mean. If you think I am handpicking a few 'heretics' among a set that's mostly composed  of anti-clerical free-thinkers then you are mistaken. 
> I just go by the people I have known 'in real life' and folks I have
> corresponded with (and/or seen correspondence from) on teh interwebs.
> To date I have not seen Fundamentalist and Libertarian identities
> coexisting in one head.  

	Well, for what it's worth, I've met a few local 'libertarians' who were militant catholics.

> But hey, as I said I do not doubt it can happen
> - though I suspect that easily led fools who get their self-labeling
> directives confused would account for most cases.

> > 	And this is just as it should be. Fake libertarians and true conservatives have to embrace pilars of conservatism such as economic corporatism and 'religious' corporatism (jew-kristianity) 
> Ah so:  "Fake Libertarians" resemble "true Conservatives" and display
> the same gang signs, so to speak.  I can relate - see above.  But since
> some "fake" guise own the rights to the Libertarian™ brand, and the
> infrastructure of the U.S. Libertarian Party, I find it convenient to
> just call them "Libertarians."

	yes, members The Party are sometimes referred to as big L libertarians.


> A hypothetical not-fake-Libertarian, I would most likely call an
> Anarchist.  But even so, I somehow missed seeing the association between
> the Libertarian Party, or the folks who call themselves Libertarians in
> online venues, and the Religious Reich's theocratic agenda.

	If I came accross saying that people from the libertarian party were theocrats then my bad, that's not what I wanted to say. 

	The 'libertarians' who are also militant christians are those associated with ron paul, lew rockwell and their 'ludwig von mises institute'. I do believe that faction of american 'libertarians' is a rather influential one. The other faction are the 'libertarians' associated with treason magazine and the koch brothers. The koch brothers faction is I think more anticlerical and that's the only good thing about them. 

> Could it be that "failure to denounce" other people's religious beliefs
> means one shares them?  

	Not necessarily. But I know well how the ron-paul-lew-rockwell mafia operates and I know that members of that mafia are either outright christiano-fascists, or people who seem completely unaware of the fact that their associates are christiano-fascists. 

	So not denouncing one's pals who pretend to be 'libertarians' but in reality are theocrats means that one is an accomplice of theocracy, not a libertarian. 

> I would view that perception as the product of a
> Rebel As You Are Told propaganda regimen. 

	^-^  Yeah, you tried to put me in that category a couple of times. But you're mistaken. I don't need and I didn't need anyone to tell me that conservatives, religious or otherwise, are the enemy. I figured that out by myself =P

> We get that all the time, as
> part of a larger Divide The Conquered agenda that keeps electoral
> politics from having adverse impacts on the authority of the U.S. ruling
> class.

	If the christiano fascists were actually useful in overthrowing the ruling class I wouldn't mind some sort of 'alliance' with them. But...the christiano fascists ARE part of the ruling class...So the division is real as far as I'm concerned. 

> > 	Yet another feature of these 'libertarians' is their rabid opposition to free speech and the idea that children are the 'property' of the parents. Both views are based on a laughable and fallacious 'theory' of 'property', which goes to show that these 'libertarians' do not actually value liberty. 
> Libertarians, fake or real per any kind of consensus definition, who
> show "rabid opposition to free speech"?  I will need to see examples
> before I can comment on that.  But I must admit to grave skepticism...

	Well, again, not sure who you think are representatives of actual libertarianism but virtualy all of the ones I ever talk to believe that "property owners" can set "any rules they want" so free speech in practice DOES NOT EXIST. You can only say what the 'owners' allow you to say. 

	So, here comes marxs fuckerberg ALLOWING 'holocaust denial' in his nsa bulleting board which means fukerberg is graciously allowing some 'free speech'.

	"Reason's Robby Soave and Mike Riggs debate whether Mark Zuckerberg should de-platform haters such as Alex Jones and Infowars to improve the user experience" 

	Guess what? 

	"Mike Riggs ... argues that by allowing obviously false and controversial material to be posted, Facebook is degrading the experience for the 99.9 percent of its users who aren't trolls." 	

	And the obvious 'solution' to that 'problem'? Why, even more censorship of course. 

	"This isn't a question about First Amendment rights or government censorship. Facebook is a private company and can set the rules however it wants."  i.e. no free speech.

	and more :

	"In short, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is only the prop­erty right to hire an assembly hall from the owners" 

	that's from rothbard who is seen at least in some circles as the high pope of narcho capitalism, bla bla. 

> :o/

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list